The New American | Homewww.thenewamerican.com/ShareMagazine of the John Birch Society, providing in-depth reporting on U.S. and worldwide issues and events. Includes weekly features, back issue archive, and ...

Quaker:dahmers love zombie: cman: Pocket Ninja: unlikely: Oh FFS. Read the Harvard article - it is all about the concentration, the amount.

In adequate concentration anything is bad for you.

This is a valid point, but I think it deliberately ignores the fact that no studies to date have really demonstrated that the chemical reagents present in jet plane contrails aren't enhancing the fluoride effect. Plus countless other extraplotables, including resonant atmospheric radiation from Fukushima, electrical transmogrification from power line clusters, and frakking, and who knows what the real long-term health effects are. It's scary stuff.

SHUT THE fark UP ASSHOLE

You are gonna trigger the Reptilian bankers to shut Fark down to withhold the truth.

Hah! I'm already in psionic contact with the Grays. They'll take care of this.

Not that I think any of that Reptillian/Gray stuff is true (I suppose even if it were I would never be able to know for sure), but treating conspiracy theories and the like in an insulting way is what allows actual conspiracies to go on. If in 1955 you said to someone, "You know, the CIA is kidnapping American and Canadian citizens and subjecting them to a variety of mind control experiments," people would have reacted with that same kind of glib disbelief. But as we later found out, they would have been wrong (Pops). Considering this kind of stuff actually happened, it makes me reconsider a lot of things that people immediately dismiss just because it sounds crazy.

rhondajeremy:mgshamster: earthworm2.0: mgshamster: earthworm2.0: know how I can tell there are no chemists in this thread?

How?

My dad is a biochemist. been working at the same place for 31 years. I asked him about the flouride in water thing. he says its harmless. the big fear is because flouride is highly reactive and can pair with lots of other stuff, and sometimes can make damgerous compounds. but the ppm that is in water is like trying to desalinate the ocean with an eyedropper. also, the flouride in water is not the same as the flouride in toothpaste. I wish I had paid better attention, i could explain it better...

Oh, I'm aware of fluoride. I'm a toxicologist (a chemist who focuses on toxins). I was just curious how you could tell there were no chemists in this thread.

Most people here are making fun of the conspiracy theorists, not agreeing with them.

/it has been different in other fluoride threads.

I have an honest question. If it doesn't do anything, why did the Nazis put it in the concentration camps' water? Really doubt it was to improve their oral health. Does anyone know why they did that?

//don't have a problem with fluoride but being that products like Paxil are derived from it, I try to watch my intake (like anything else-moderation)

I haven't heard that before. Many thanks to Google, it turns out to be a myth.

quantumtheo:Second, fluoride isn't natural, it comes from the process of smelting bauxite into aluminum...

Yes it is. It also happens to occur around bauxite. Let's assume for a second that it isn't naturally occurring, why would you make the assumption that because it's part of another manufacturing process, it must be bad for you?

quantumtheo:Third, fluoride is used in pesticides and other types of poisons. The same poison control telephone number is on toothpaste that is on pesticides.

So is water. And a number of other perfectly safe chemicals. Are you going to stop eating peppers because capsaicin is used in some pesticides?

And why wouldn't the same phone number be on both products? Do you think they have different poison control centers for each threat? The number isn't on toothpaste specifically because of the fluoride, it's there because the entire mix of chemicals could potentially be harmful if you eat the entire tube.

quantumtheo:Fourth, it was used as a sedative in Russian gulags and Nazi concentration camps.

mgshamster:rhondajeremy: mgshamster: earthworm2.0: mgshamster: earthworm2.0: know how I can tell there are no chemists in this thread?

How?

My dad is a biochemist. been working at the same place for 31 years. I asked him about the flouride in water thing. he says its harmless. the big fear is because flouride is highly reactive and can pair with lots of other stuff, and sometimes can make damgerous compounds. but the ppm that is in water is like trying to desalinate the ocean with an eyedropper. also, the flouride in water is not the same as the flouride in toothpaste. I wish I had paid better attention, i could explain it better...

Oh, I'm aware of fluoride. I'm a toxicologist (a chemist who focuses on toxins). I was just curious how you could tell there were no chemists in this thread.

Most people here are making fun of the conspiracy theorists, not agreeing with them.

/it has been different in other fluoride threads.

I have an honest question. If it doesn't do anything, why did the Nazis put it in the concentration camps' water? Really doubt it was to improve their oral health. Does anyone know why they did that?

//don't have a problem with fluoride but being that products like Paxil are derived from it, I try to watch my intake (like anything else-moderation)

I haven't heard that before. Many thanks to Google, it turns out to be a myth.

Truth about fluoride doesn't include Nazi myth (Read the whole thing, the first few paragraphs can be misleading).

Just googled it too and yeah, it's a myth for sure. I have just heard many people talk about it and was feeling lazy.

BigJake:dready zim: But... But... they tell us that not leaving the tap on when I brush my teeth will save all the water needed to reforest the sahara and feed the world!

Yeah, that's crap. But when there's a supply crunch every little bit helps, especially since during times of drought the supplies for agriculture need to INCREASE. Which is why we all shouldn't be wasting our water if we like to eat.

Fluoride is bad. This is why the label of the toothpaste tube says to not swallow it! My city doesn't poison the public water but that hasn't stopped certain people from trying to vote the poison into the water.

earthworm2.0:mgshamster: earthworm2.0: know how I can tell there are no chemists in this thread?

How?

My dad is a biochemist. been working at the same place for 31 years. I asked him about the flouride in water thing. he says its harmless. the big fear is because flouride is highly reactive and can pair with lots of other stuff, and sometimes can make damgerous compounds. but the ppm that is in water is like trying to desalinate the ocean with an eyedropper. also, the flouride in water is not the same as the flouride in toothpaste. I wish I had paid better attention, i could explain it better...

quantumtheo:Second, fluoride isn't natural, it comes from the process of smelting bauxite into aluminum...

Wait, so the 9th element on the periodic table of elements is unnatural? Someone tell the chemists!

StoPPeRmobile:BigJake: dready zim: But... But... they tell us that not leaving the tap on when I brush my teeth will save all the water needed to reforest the sahara and feed the world!

Yeah, that's crap. But when there's a supply crunch every little bit helps, especially since during times of drought the supplies for agriculture need to INCREASE. Which is why we all shouldn't be wasting our water if we like to eat.

So stop the suburban sprawl.

Tell that to the developers. :/

/My home town was once rated in the top ten cities in the US for empty new office buildings, and there was still constant construction for office development throughout the next few years.//Until the 08 crash.

mbillips:Mr. Eugenides: OK, from the abstract, it says "Results: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was -0.45 (95% CI -0.56 to -0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low fluoride areas. " Now, I'm not sure what they mean by -0.45. If that's half an IQ point, that doesn't seem like a "significant difference."

That said, it does look like the result warrants additional study but probably not regulation at this point.

I was wondering that myself. It looks like minus 45 percent to me, which is REALLY significant. But it may be some kinda linear bell curve scale.

Ahh! IQ is a a Bell curve with a mean of 100 and a Standard Deviation of 15. So if it's .45 of a StdDv that would be about 7 points which is fairly significant.

PlatypusPuke:earthworm2.0: mgshamster: earthworm2.0: know how I can tell there are no chemists in this thread?

How?

My dad is a biochemist. been working at the same place for 31 years. I asked him about the flouride in water thing. he says its harmless. the big fear is because flouride is highly reactive and can pair with lots of other stuff, and sometimes can make damgerous compounds. but the ppm that is in water is like trying to desalinate the ocean with an eyedropper. also, the flouride in water is not the same as the flouride in toothpaste. I wish I had paid better attention, i could explain it better...

One of the mysteries of ALS is why it is more commonly diagnosed in athletes and firefighters. I was having a conversation about this with a top ALS researcher and one of the possibilities we discussed was that both athletes and firefighters drink much more water than normal people (those guys that fight wildfires drink many gallons per day). So, because ALS is a disease of the nervous system, the next question is what neurotoxins are in water? It's worth looking into the flouride possibility, but good luck getting the government to fund the study of this when it's the government putting the neurotoxin in the water in the first place.

Triumph:One of the mysteries of ALS is why it is more commonly diagnosed in athletes and firefighters. I was having a conversation about this with a top ALS researcher and one of the possibilities we discussed was that both athletes and firefighters drink much more water than normal people (those guys that fight wildfires drink many gallons per day). So, because ALS is a disease of the nervous system, the next question is what neurotoxins are in water? It's worth looking into the flouride possibility, but good luck getting the government to fund the study of this when it's the government putting the neurotoxin in the water in the first place.

Seems to me that athletes are more prone to injury and might seek medical attention more often. Wonder how true that is.

StoPPeRmobile:Seems to me that athletes are more prone to injury and might seek medical attention more often. Wonder how true that is.

There's also the brain trauma thing with athletes. I think there was a claim in the NYT that 12 NFL players diagnosed with ALS really had CTE, a brain trauma disease. But O.J. Brigance, Steve Gleason, Kevin Turner and some other NFL guys have been diagnosed with ALS pretty definitively, I think. Obviously, the knocks they took to the head are going to be viewed far more suspiciously than the water they drank.

Gee, why don't people just pull out the nice double-blind clinical studies which prove that fluoride is safe and effective? What do you mean there aren't any? What do you mean that recent studies show no difference in cavity rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies?

Be sure to use genuine Tin Foil. Aluminum foil has much too low conductivity to provide proper protection. Gold foil is much more conductive, but is usually too thick to maintain a safe, strong shield.

Triumph:StoPPeRmobile: Seems to me that athletes are more prone to injury and might seek medical attention more often. Wonder how true that is.

There's also the brain trauma thing with athletes. I think there was a claim in the NYT that 12 NFL players diagnosed with ALS really had CTE, a brain trauma disease. But O.J. Brigance, Steve Gleason, Kevin Turner and some other NFL guys have been diagnosed with ALS pretty definitively, I think. Obviously, the knocks they took to the head are going to be viewed far more suspiciously than the water they drank.

It's hard to take the EHP study seriously when they admit that the studies the used were "generally of insufficient" quality. The authors even mention that some of the studies have "serious" deficiencies. That might not be a big deal but when your final tally is just 27 studies, having such problems is a big deal.

Speaking of which, I enjoy how they didn't even try to justify their usage of the DerSimonian and Laird method of random effects estimation. The same method that has notoriously bad small sample size asymptotics. Even DerSimonian and Laird suggest not using their method with small sample sizes.

Since there are obviously serious omitted variable bias (heterogeneity of ~80%?!) problems its hard to put any faith in their results at all. I mean their results are almost guaranteed to be an outer bound on Flouride effects. And that's ignoring the nearly halved effect when they removed the studies that also included Arsenic and Iodine exposure as well.

quantumtheo:I can't believe how ill-informed the public is to an unnatural toxin that is put into our water supply. This wasn't written by 'some guy' either... I like this website, but this post actually makes me really mad.

First off, if we really do live in a free market(which we don't), go buy your own fluoride and put it in your own water! Talk about socialism.... and someone is making a profit selling that fluoride, which is fascism too! awesome....

Second, fluoride isn't natural, it comes from the process of smelting bauxite into aluminum...

Third, fluoride is used in pesticides and other types of poisons. The same poison control telephone number is on toothpaste that is on pesticides.

Fourth, it was used as a sedative in Russian gulags and Nazi concentration camps.

Fifth, they are finding that too much fluoride actually CAUSES cavities, as well as kills flora in your stomach.

Last, fluoride kills living matter on contact... if it is only for your teeth, why do you need to drink it? Why is it added to BABY water? If a baby doesn't have teeth... or has baby teeth that will fall out, why do they need it????

Americans have been propagandized to so much that they can't be propagandized to, that they don't see propaganda anymore.... Just what they are told to believe because it's true. Nobody does their homework, they just assume things are true and spout off something idiotic like "the sun causes cancer too." Well, some things are many thousands of times worse than the sun, so you have to pick your battles.

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." George Orwell

unlikely:Pocket Ninja: unlikely: Oh FFS. Read the Harvard article - it is all about the concentration, the amount.

In adequate concentration anything is bad for you.

This is a valid point, but I think it deliberately ignores the fact that no studies to date have really demonstrated that the chemical reagents present in jet plane contrails aren't enhancing the fluoride effect. Plus countless other extraplotables, including resonant atmospheric radiation from Fukushima, electrical transmogrification from power line clusters, and frakking, and who knows what the real long-term health effects are. It's scary stuff.

Jesus, I hadn't considered that.

Plus I never even considered the goddamn vaccines. COW pox? They shot me full of COW POX when I was a kid?

You can filter the water, but how am I supposed to filter out the radiation?

Mr. Eugenides:mbillips: Mr. Eugenides: OK, from the abstract, it says "Results: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was -0.45 (95% CI -0.56 to -0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low fluoride areas. " Now, I'm not sure what they mean by -0.45. If that's half an IQ point, that doesn't seem like a "significant difference."

That said, it does look like the result warrants additional study but probably not regulation at this point.

I was wondering that myself. It looks like minus 45 percent to me, which is REALLY significant. But it may be some kinda linear bell curve scale.

Ahh! IQ is a a Bell curve with a mean of 100 and a Standard Deviation of 15. So if it's .45 of a StdDv that would be about 7 points which is fairly significant.

Without RTFA and merely looking at the quote, they're talking about a difference of .45 IQ points between populations with high and low fluoridation. They're using significant in the statistical sense, which has a specific meaning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance